Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/123/2018

Mr. P G Rajendran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Times Of India Rep by Marketing Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhakar

04 May 2022

ORDER

                                                                    Date of Complaint Filed  :  23.02.2018

                                                                                                                                 Date of Reservation        : 18.04.2022                                                                     

                                                                                                                                  Date of Order                 : 04.05.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B JIJAA, M.L.,                                             : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,            :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.123 /2018

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^th  DAY OF MAY 2022

 

P.G.Rajendran

Apt No.B-103, Manasa Royal,

Ashram Road, Vijayanagar III Stage,

Hinkal, Mysore – 570017.                                                                                                                         .. Complainant                                      

..Versus..

 

The Marketing Manager – Subscription,

The Times of India – Chennai Edition,

123, Chamiers Road, Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.                                                                                                                            .. Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant                  : P.G.Rajendran, Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party      : M/s. Prashant Rajagopal   

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant, Party in Person we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.       The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.499/- being one year’s subscription amount paid for prompt, regular and uninterrupted delivery of copies of TIMES OF INDIA from 14.04.2017 to 13.04.2018 and to pay a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the Opposite Party for the mental agony / anxiety and inconvenience caused to the Complainant by their “gross deficiency of service” and also to pay Rs.5000/- from the Opposite Party towards costs of litigation.

2.      The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The case of Complainant is that he subscribed to 1 year’s delivery of TIMES OF INDIA, Chennai edition for the period from 14-04-2017  to 13-04-2018 vide subscription receipt for Rs.499/- Order Form No.:NDE 017604-Subscriber ID.:26932291. The Complainant and his family planned to relocate from Chennai to Mysore in October, 2017, and on contacting Opposite Party, the Complainant was asked to give an alternative address hence he had requested to deliver to his brother-in-law address who resides in the same area till 13.04.2018 since proportionate refund was not informed by the Opposite Party.  There are no terms and conditions in the Subscription Receipt. The Complainant had himself taken the newspaper delivery boy and shown him the new address where he had requested delivery of copies from 20.10.2017. The Complainant had also sent 2 SMS on 20-10-2017 and 28.10.2017 to the Newspaper Agent-mobile No:98840-45490 to whom he usually hands over the new Subscription Receipts every year for prompt, regular and uninterrupted delivery of copies of TIMES OF INDIA. The Opposite Party assured prompt delivery of copies from 01-11-2017 at the new address requested by him. But only one copy of TIMES OF INDIA was delivered at the new address as sample for just one day only on 10.11.2017. The Complainant  and his family left Chennai on 22.10.2017 for Registration of their new apartment in Mysore on 23.10.2017 and are living in Mysore since then. The Complainant relied on the Opposite Party’s e-mail dated 07.11.2017 wherein the Opposite Party requested to give 3 days to resolve his grievance.  Even then the Opposite Party was unable to resolve the issue as assured and non-delivery of copies of the newspaper for over 3 months since 20.10.2017 and claimed the same as “Deficiency in Service”. The Complainant had sent a notice dated 30.01.2018 to the Opposite Party under RPAD which was duly delivered on 02.02.2018 and acknowledged by the Opposite Party. Till the date of filing of this Complaint  there is no response from the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.

3.Written Version of the Opposite Party in brief are as follows:-

                The Complaint is false frivolous and vexatious and is an abuse of process of this court and is liable to be dismissed with costs. The Complainant claims to be a subscriber of the Opposite Party having subscribed for 1 year’s subscription of Times of India Newspaper which is printed and published by Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., which subscription was for the period of 14.04.2017 to 13.04.2018. Times of India is not a legal entity and as such this version is signed by Authorised Signatory of Bennett, Coleman & Co., Ltd., who is also the Printer and Published of Times of India. The Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.499/- towards subscription charges by filing up Order cum Receipt form. The Opposite Party would state that as per the agreed terms and conditions which is found over-leaf in the above said Order form it was specifically stated that the subscription is non transferable. Despite this being the case, when the Complainant informed the Opposite Party on 20.10.2017 that he would be shifting to Mysore and requested that effective from 01.11.2017 the Newspaper is to be delivered at his brother-in-law’s residence, the Opposite Party as a good will Gesture agreed to the same and gave suitable instructions to its dealer/Channel partner Mr.P.R Narayanan and accordingly, the newspaper were delivered daily at the address requested for by the Complainant which is his brother-in-law’s  house effective from 01.11.2017, even though the Complainant was not entitled to transfer his subscription to any other person. When the Complainant sent mails to the Opposite Party stating otherwise the Opposite Party giving benefit of doubt to its subscriber i.e., the Complainant, assured  that they would look into the matter. Thereafter when the Opposite Party made internal enquiries with its dealer/channel partner and the concerned delivery boys, the Opposite Party learned that newspaper were supplied regularly to the Complainant brother-in-law’s residence from 01.11.2017 to 13.04.2018 accordingly the Opposite Party also obtained letters of confirmation from its channel partner and delivery boys who supplied the newspaper to the Complainant as above said. The Opposite Party contended that when they had adhered the request of the Complainant it is not known as to how he claimed otherwise could state that mental agony or serious psychological injuries was caused to him. The Opposite Party is not liable to pay to the Complainant any sum much less refund of 1 year’s subscription of Rs.499/- or compensation of Rs.50,000/- or cost of Rs.5000/- as claimed by the Complainant.

4.     The Complainant had filed Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Complainant Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 were marked. The Opposite parties had not filed Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and no document was marked on the side of the Opposite Parties.

5.         Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

6.     Point No.1

        Admittedly, as per Ex.A-1 the Complainant had paid Annual Subscription for one year for the period from 14.04.2017 to 13.04.2018 of Opposite Party’s Chennai edition Newspaper and in support of the same he has produced a receipt.  The Complainant requested the Opposite Party to deliver the Newspaper to his brother-in-law’s house as he has planned to shift his residence from Chennai to Mysore, which the Opposite Party had agreed to deliver the newspaper to his brother-in-law’s house from 01.11.2017. The Complainant had e-mail  communications from 19.10.2017 to 05.01.2018 which was marked as Ex.A-2 claiming delivery of newspaper  or refund.  The  Opposite Party had replied  to resolve the issue of delivery of Newspaper to the address requested by the complainant but in their written version they claimed that on enquiries it was confirmed that the delivery was made from 01.11.2017 to 13.04.2018 but no proof has been filed in support of their contention and except filing of written version the Opposite Party has not chosen to file their proof affidavit, written arguments in spite of ample opportunities provided and the oral arguments was closed. Further the Complainant had caused a notice on 30.01.2018 which was acknowledged by the Opposite Party as found in Exs.A-4 & A-5 and the same was not responded by the Opposite Party. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Opposite party had failed and neglected to deliver the Newspaper as agreed upon and thereby had committed deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party.

7. Point No.2:-

As point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant and found that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.250/- towards non delivery of Newspaper from 01.11.2017 to 13.04.2018, to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony suffered on the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of this complaint. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered partly in favour of the Complainant.

 

8. Point No.3

        We are of the considered view that the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. Hence, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Only) towards non delivery of Newspaper from 01.11.2017 to 13.04.2018, to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) towards mental agony suffered on the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Party and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards cost of this complaint within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of payment.

         In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 4^th  day of May 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                             MEMBER I                              PRESIDENT

 

 

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:

 

Ex.A-1	No Date	Subscription Receipt for Rs.499/- Order Form No. NDE 017604- Subscriber ID. 26902291
Ex.A-2	19.10.2017 to 04.01.2018	Photocopies of E-Mail Correspondence with the Opposite Party from 19.10.2017 to 04.01.2018
Ex.A-3	23.10.2017	Photocopies evidencing Registration of New Apartment in Mysore on 23.10.2017
Ex.A-4	30.01.2018	Complainant’s Notice to the Opposite Party for refund of Subscription
Ex.A-5	31.01.2018	Proof of Service of Notice-RPAD NoRK593072045IN IVR: 8275593072045 dtd 31.01.2018 duly delvered and received on 02.02.2018 by the O.P.

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:

 

-NIL-

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                             MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT